An unreasoned notification is not an unreasoned decision — and that distinction sinks your appeal
The Council of State dismisses an appeal against the cancellation of a vehicle-towing tender because the contested decision itself was formally reasoned, even though the bidder only saw those reasons four months later — a tardiness that costs the police zone the procedural costs but does not affect the legality of the decision.
What happened?
The Limburg Regio Hoofdstad police zone tendered a vehicle-towing service in May 2022, with price as the sole award criterion. Two bids came in: the applicant's and BV Delveau's. On 4 July 2022 the contract went to Delveau. The applicant obtained a suspension on 16 August 2022 (Council of State decision no. 254,325). On 31 August 2022 the police zone withdrew the original award. On 22 September 2022 the police council decided to cancel the entire procedure and re-tender. That cancellation decision contained explicit reasoning citing article 85 of the 2016 Public Procurement Act. But the bidder initially only received a notification letter dated 4 October 2022 with no reasons attached. Only on 27 January 2023 — nearly four months later — were the reasons communicated. The annulment claim alleged that the decision was 'not reasoned at all'. The Council looked at the actual decision (not the notification letter) and confirmed: the decision contains formal reasoning. What the applicant criticised was the notification, not the decision — so the ground 'lacks factual basis'. The remaining issue: the reasons were communicated four months late, contrary to article 9 of the procurement-protection law, which requires immediate communication. But that breach concerns only the notification, not the legality of the decision itself. The applicant could still have raised additional grounds in its reply memorandum after receiving the reasons, and did not. The subsidiary breach of article 9 is therefore inadmissible for lack of standing. Application dismissed. Yet the Council orders the police zone to bear the procedural costs (court fee €200, contribution €24): the late communication of reasons forced the bidder to file an appeal blind. No legal-fees indemnity for the applicant, however — it cannot count as the 'winning party' since its grounds were rejected.
Why does this matter?
Many bidders confuse 'what the letter says' with 'what the decision is' — but the Council reviews the actual decision, not the letter. A reasoned decision in the file plus a bare notification letter still wins the legality test. For bidders: always demand the reasoned decision before filing — otherwise you fight a shadow. For contracting authorities: send the reasons together with the notification, or you risk paying the court fees even if you prevail on the substance.
The lesson
If you receive an unreasoned notification, request the reasoned decision in writing and on record before filing an appeal. Otherwise your ground is built on the notification, not on the decision — and once the decision itself contains reasons, your ground 'lacks factual basis'. For contracting authorities: include the reasoned decision in the notification, or at minimum tell the bidder how and where to obtain it immediately. Otherwise you carry the procedural costs.
Ask yourself
Did you receive an unreasoned notification as a bidder? Request the reasons in writing and dated before filing an appeal. As a contracting authority: does your notification letter contain the factual and legal reasoning, or does it just refer to 'the decision of [date]'?
About this database
The Council of State (Raad van State / Conseil d'État) is Belgium's supreme administrative court. In disputes over public procurement — from contract awards to tenderer exclusions — the Council of State is the final arbiter. The rulings in this database are summarised by TenderWolf in plain language, with practical lessons for tenderers and contracting authorities. View all rulings →